Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.

Ginsberg and Breyer did not face the situation that Roberts will face. The Republicans in Congress did not threaten a filibuster, the Cato Institute was not raising money for a fight. Do the Democrats forget something YOU LOST!!!!!

Stop this crap. What does Bush owe you? I'll tell you, nothing! Because you lost!

What are you afraid of? Someone who actually reads and rules based on the Constitution, not what he thinks the founders might have thought when they wrote the document. If you're afraid of the Constitution, why don't you finally move to Canada like you promised.

Let's look at what some of these LOSERS are saying.

The ACLU says, ""The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in advancing freedom," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct." So what exactly is Romero trying to say, that Roberts will roll back ruling of the court. Right, like the citizenry would allow that to happen. Nice scare tactic, show me some evidence.

Howard, AAARH, Dean said, ""Democrats take very seriously the responsibility to protect the individual rights of all Americans and are committed to ensuring that ideological judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee will now have the opportunity to see if Judge Roberts can put his partisanship aside, and live up to a Supreme Court Justice's duty to uphold the rights and freedoms of every American and the promise of equal justice for all." Funny, I never realized that someone who supports the rules written down nearly 220 years ago would be considered an activist. Did ever read the oath of office that a Supreme Court Justice takes it is pretty interesting, they actually take two oaths:

I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. Do help me God

and

I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as_________ according to my abilities and understanding agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.Â

That pretty much says it: Administer justice equally. He will be taking an oath that he is to do that. He also says he will support theconstitutionn, something which is foreign to a number of democrats. That could be the problem.

Let's look at some of NOW's issues. Naturally Roe v. Wade is an issue and Roberts stated that he feels it was not ruled upon properly. I'll get to why in a minute.

"While in private law practice, Roberts served as lead counsel for Toyota in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, in which he argued to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case involved a woman fired after asking Toyota for accommodations to do her job after being diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. The court ruled that while this condition impaired her ability to work, it did not impair her ability to perform a major life activity, and thus was not protected by the ADA." Actually, Sandra Day O'Connor, who the Dems consider a moderate and supported served the opinion of the court against Williams. Basically, she was a pneumatic tool operator who developed carpal tunnel, they moved her to adifferentt area of the plant and she still could not perform her job. The court ruled in favor of Toyota, and this line says it all, "There is also no support in the [American with Disabilities] Act, our previous opinions, or the regulations for the Court of Appeals' idea that the question of whether an impairment constitutes a disability is to be answered only by analyzing the effect of the impairment in the workplace." Here's the kicker, there was no dissenting opinion. Not even the liberals on the court agreed with this suit. Nice try!

So what else don't these chicks like, he is against Title IX, which is unconstitutional, and he is in favor of the 10th amendment to the Bill of Rights, this is where Roe v. Wade comes in. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Overturning Roe v. Wade is not going to make abortion illegal, it will put it where it should be, in the states and with the citizenry. Since it is not prohibited and the Constitution does not expressly allow the government to act, it would and should fall to the states.

In closing, I feel I must reiterate the point, that an originalist by nature is not an activist. www.freedictionary.com defines the root word, active, as disposed to take action or effectuate change. Originalists don't want change, they support and uphold Constitution.